Rabbi Yosei said: Now they will say: Meir is dead, Yehuda is angry, and Yosei remained silent and did not respond. If so, what will become of the Torah? Rabbi Yosei therefore said: It is not necessary to teach that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a corpse, but only that he must shave even for impurity imparted by a corpse upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh. The Gemara asks: But one could still say: If he must shave for impurity imparted by a limb from a corpse, even if it is less than an olive-bulk, as stated in the mishna, is it not all the more so that he must shave for impurity imparted by all of a corpse, even if it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh?

Rather, the mishna should be explained as Rabbi Yoḥanan said, with regard to a different issue: It is necessary only for a miscarried fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Here too, one can say that the mishna’s statement that a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by a corpse is referring to a miscarried fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Although it does not impart impurity through one of its limbs, as the limbs lack sinews and bones, this corpse itself does impart impurity.

Rava said a different explanation: This ruling is necessary only for the majority of the structure or the majority of the number of bones of a very small corpse, despite the fact that together they do not contain a quarter-kav of bones. Since these bones comprise the majority of the structure or the majority of the number of bones of a corpse, they have the status of a whole body. This halakha could not have been derived from the measure of impurity of part of the body, as this corpse is very small.

§ The mishna taught: A nazirite shaves for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of fluid. The Gemara explains: And what is fluid? This is referring to flesh of the corpse that liquefied and subsequently congealed, and liquid [mohal] from the corpse that began to boil and then hardened.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which the congealment is a determinative factor in the imparting of impurity? If we say that we do not know that the substance with which the nazirite came into contact is from the corpse, even if it congealed, what of it? Rather, you will say that we know that it came from the corpse. But then the nazirite should be impure even though it has not congealed.

Rabbi Yirmeya said that this is referring to an unspecified substance that is definitely from the corpse but is not necessarily a substance that imparts impurity. One therefore examines the substance: If the substance eventually congeals, it is liquid from the corpse, which imparts impurity; if it does not congeal, perhaps it is his phlegm and his spittle, which do not impart impurity.

§ With regard to the impurity of fluids from a corpse, Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: Is there the category of fluid with regard to animals, or is there no category of fluid with regard to animals? In other words, does fluid from an animal carcass impart impurity like the animal carcass itself or not? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that it is learned as a tradition that fluid that comes from a person is impure but fluid that comes from an animal is not impure? Or perhaps it is no different, as fluid from a corpse is always considered like the flesh itself?

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that a carcass imparts impurity by a severe impurity, through contact and carrying, only until the carcass becomes inedible for a stranger, i.e., in order impart impurity it must be fit for human consumption. And the carcass imparts impurity by a light impurity that imparts impurity on food through contact until the carcass become inedible for a dog. According to this opinion, it is well, as the halakha of fluid certainly does not apply to an animal, since meat that has liquefied is no longer fit for human consumption.

However, according to the one who says that a carcass imparts impurity by a severe impurity until it becomes inedible for a dog, what is there to say? Since fluids from an animal carcass are presumably fit to be eaten by a dog, the above dilemma as to whether it is impure remains pertinent.

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from the Tosefta (Zavim 5:9): The fat of an animal carcass that someone liquefied in fire is still impure. However, if it melted in the sun, which impairs its taste, it is pure. And if it enters your mind that according to the opinion that a carcass imparts impurity until it becomes inedible for a dog the impurity of fluids does apply to an animal carcass, if so, even fat that dissolved in the sun should also be impure. Even if its taste is spoiled, it remains edible for a dog.

The Gemara answers: When does this fat liquefy? After it has putrefied, which is why it was thrown out, at which point it melted in the sun. However, once it putrefied, it had already become like dust and lost any status of ritual impurity it once had. Once it has melted, it is no longer edible for a dog. Consequently, this source provides no proof.

§ The Gemara discusses a related issue. We learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 5:9): Anything that is poured remains ritually pure. In other words, if one pours liquid from one vessel into another, the stream of liquid is not considered to connect the two vessels. Consequently, if the upper vessel and its contents are pure, they do not become impure even if the lower vessel into which the liquid is poured is impure. The stream of liquid does not link them in this manner.

The mishna adds: This is the case for all liquids except for zifim honey, a very thick type of honey, and batter, e.g., flour mixed with honey. Since these substances are highly viscous, they are not considered liquids. Rather, they are a kind of soft solid food, which means that they are a single unit that links the two vessels with regard to impurity.